The system disclosed herein can be used with, but is not limited to, vehicles employed in crash avoidance technologies disclosed in the following patent applications developed by the same inventors and assigned to the same assignee: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/050,039 entitled “System and Method for testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Oct. 9, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/050,048 entitled “System and Method for testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Oct. 9, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,274 entitled “Master-Slave Automated Coordinated Vehicle Control” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,267 entitled “Rigid Belt Drive Tensioner” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,264 entitled “Robotic Hydraulic Brake Master Cylinder” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/357,526 entitled “System and Method for Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed Jan. 24, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,447,509); U.S. Patent Application No. 61/507,539 entitled “Guided Soft Target For Full Scale Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology Testing” filed on Jul. 13, 2011 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/578,452 entitled “Guided Soft Target For Full Scale Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology Testing” filed on Dec. 21, 2011 filed by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/621,597 entitled “Collision Partner, System and Method” filed on Apr. 9, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/639,745 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Apr. 27, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,366 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,428,863); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,383 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,428,864); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,396 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,457,877); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,417 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,430 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al. Each of these patent applications is incorporated herein in their entirety including all tables, figures, and claims.
As Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACATs) such as Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Crash Imminent Braking Systems and other advanced technologies continue to be developed, the need for full-scale test methodologies that can minimize hazards to test personnel and damage to equipment has rapidly increased. Evaluating such ACAT systems presents many challenges. For example, the evaluation system should be able to deliver a potential Soft Collision Partner (Soft CP) reliably and precisely along a trajectory that would ultimately result in a crash in a variety of configurations, such as rear-ends, head-ons, crossing paths, and sideswipes. Additionally, the Soft Collision Partner should not pose a substantial physical risk to the test driver, other test personnel, equipment, or to subject vehicles in the event that the collision is not avoided. This challenge has been difficult to address. Third, the Soft CP should appear to the subject vehicle as the actual item being simulated, such as a motor vehicle, a pedestrian, or other object. For example, the Soft CP should provide a consistent signature for radar and other sensors to the various subject vehicles, substantially identical to that of the item being simulated. It would be also advantageous for the Soft CP to be inexpensive and repeatably reusable with a minimum of time and effort.
As disclosed in the inventors' previous patent applications, fully incorporated herein by reference, the Guided Soft Target (GST) system includes a dynamic motion element (DME) as a mobile and controllable platform that carries the Soft CP. The DME is of such shape and dimension that it can be run over by the vehicle under test (aka the subject vehicle), with little to no damage to either the DME or the subject vehicle. When a collision occurs with the GST system, the subject vehicle impacts the Soft CP, which then absorbs the collision and may collapse and/or separate from the DME. Such a Soft CP is disclosed in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,366 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,428,863), incorporated by reference. This is disclosed fully in the previous patent applications listed above and incorporated by reference.
The innovations disclosed in this application implement a modified DME to allow for testing of pedestrian crash avoidance. During the development and evaluation phases of Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking (PAEB) systems, pedestrian dummies are often used as surrogates for actual pedestrians, in order to reduce the risk of physical harm to the pedestrians themselves, and to the operator of the vehicle under test. Some pedestrian dummies are used in fixed postures, and are used either in stationary positions, or while mounted on moving platforms. These dummies, when used on moving platforms, often resemble a skateboard rider, since no leg motion can be observed to correspond with the overall motion of the pedestrian dummy.
Many current PAEB systems rely on the observation of striding motion of the legs in order to categorize a moving object as a pedestrian. Proper categorization also often depends on the observation that the foot is in contact with (and, consequently, stationary relative to) the ground during the “stance” phase of the gait.
Prior art systems include self-articulating dummies that are mounted to a moving platform via central pole. The platform motion is provided by cables and an off-board motor. The leg motion is driven from hip-mounted motors, and the motion profiles are programmable, but not constrained to platform motion such that lower leg motion is largely uncontrolled (passive) with no positive control of leg posture as a function of longitudinal position. Consequently, the foot can move relative to ground during the “stance” phase of the dummy's gait. It is this deficiency that can affect the testing of current PAEB systems, which may not necessarily recognize the dummy as a pedestrian, if the foot is not in contact with the ground during the “stance” phase of the gait.
The innovations disclosed in this application address these shortcomings and provide a pedestrian dummy with a stance foot that remains in the same position relative to the floor when the platform that carries the dummy is in motion. This more naturally simulates the actual gait of a pedestrian, yielding better results for testing PAEB systems.